aaron.ballman added a comment. Be sure to add documentation for this to the language extensions page and mention the new builtin in the release notes.
================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def:658 BUILTIN(__builtin_call_with_static_chain, "v.", "nt") +BUILTIN(__builtin_nondet, "v.", "nt") ---------------- shafik wrote: > erichkeane wrote: > > Not a fan of the name in general, it doesn't really explain what is > > happening. Perhaps `__builtin_nondeterministic_value` or something? > > > > I also wonder if others might have a better name :) > `__builtin_indeterminate_value` wdyt? I think `__builtin_unspecified_value()` makes sense, as that's what you're getting back (there is a valid value, but you may get a different value on every call). I don't think `indeterminate` makes sense because that implies it may return trap values, and I'm guessing that's not behavior we want here (or am I wrong about that)? Also, should this be usable within a constant expression? I would assume not; we should have a test case showing you can't use it in such a context. ================ Comment at: clang/include/clang/Basic/Builtins.def:658 BUILTIN(__builtin_call_with_static_chain, "v.", "nt") +BUILTIN(__builtin_nondet, "v.", "nt") ---------------- aaron.ballman wrote: > shafik wrote: > > erichkeane wrote: > > > Not a fan of the name in general, it doesn't really explain what is > > > happening. Perhaps `__builtin_nondeterministic_value` or something? > > > > > > I also wonder if others might have a better name :) > > `__builtin_indeterminate_value` wdyt? > I think `__builtin_unspecified_value()` makes sense, as that's what you're > getting back (there is a valid value, but you may get a different value on > every call). I don't think `indeterminate` makes sense because that implies > it may return trap values, and I'm guessing that's not behavior we want here > (or am I wrong about that)? > > Also, should this be usable within a constant expression? I would assume not; > we should have a test case showing you can't use it in such a context. Why does this require custom typechecking? Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D142388/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D142388 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
